Wednesday, February 8, 2023

Nicholas P. Lunn on Identifying the Presence of Allusions

  

Studies in this area first seek to establish criteria which make the identification of allusions as objective as possible. The following presents a list, as outlined by the above-mentioned scholars, of those requirements deemed essential or important for identifying the presence of this literary feature:

 

(1) The source text must have been available to the writer. This demands as a basic requirement the fact of the document’s existence prior to the time of the writer who is alleged to allude to it.

 

(2) There should be a significant resemblance of wording. There is some subjectivity with regard to what constitutes resemblance and the amount of matching items involved. It is possible that one word, if unique and used to convey the exactly the same idea as in the source text, could constitute an allusion. Obviously the more verbal correspondence that exists, or “volume” as Hayes terms it, the greater the likelihood of deliberate allusion. The question of uniqueness also factors importantly at this point, especially if the intertext is located within the Synoptic Gospels. Since phraseology here may differ even in parallel passages, it is sometimes the case that one particular author’s wording contains words and phrases not found in the others. The appearance in the alluding text of terms distinctly unique in the earlier text makes a much stronger case that the association is in fact deliberate. On the other hand, more general vocabulary is harder to claim as allusive. The question of specificity of grammatical forms or syntactic structures is likewise highly relevant.

 

(3) Another criterion listed by Hays is that of recurrence. If there are other instances where reference is made to the same intertext within the one document, then this strengthens the case. The weight of this increases in proportion to the narrowness of the intertext. A series of citations or well-established allusions to the same book would lead some support to the claim of further possible allusion. Yet if there are recurrent references to the same chapter or same passage within that book then the probability of the definite allusion increases considerably.

 

(4) Thematic coherence is another essential consideration. The themes and ideas, as well as the original context, of the intertext should all cohere with the contents and context of the later text.

 

(5) Next is the question of historical plausibility. It must be readily believable that a writer living some distance of time after the publication of the earlier text should have intended his words to be a reference to that text. It ought also be credible that his readers or headers would have perceived the fact of the allusion and its significance.

 

(6) Hays also includes the matter of history of interpretation. The possibility that an allusion has actually been made is given some confirmation if previous interpreters of the secondary text have identified the same allusion to the source text. This particular criterion, however, needs some qualification. It is of course quite possible that the allusion has been previously discerned yet not documented, or if documented not generally known. Furthermore, the new allusions may be detected remains a distinct possibility. This criterion is therefore perhaps the least reliable of all.

 

(7) Finally comes the element of satisfaction. This criterion, Hays confesses, is the most difficult of all to articulate. Its precise definition need not detain us here. The basis of it is to ask in Hays’ own words, “does the proposed reading make sense? Does it illuminate the surrounding discourse?” (Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 [Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2014], 63-64)